One hundred days into the new Obama Administration the controversy regarding aviation in the New York/New Jersey area revolves around a White House official’s ill-conceived decision to fly the backup Air Force One and an F-16 chase plane around the Manhattan skyline for a publicity photo, a move that panicked New York-area residents with painful memories of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorists attack on the World Trade Center. Dubbed “felony stupidity” by a homeland security adviser to former President George W. Bush, the photo shoot blunder brought a quick apology from the White House.

The photo op incident elicited strong condemnation from politicians and the public alike, the opposite reaction to the positive press for pilots in the wake of the successful ditching of a US Airways Airbus A-320, the celebrated ‘Miracle on the Hudson’.

As U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood settles into his new job, he has already had to wrestle with controversy. Just last week, LaHood ordered release of volumes of bird strike data that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had attempted to conceal from the public.

The U.S. aviation agency had announced its intention to block public access to its records of bird strikes, saying release of such data might mislead the public and prompt airport to stop reporting bird strike incidents. But LaHood wrote on his official blog that "public disclosure is our job. The sea change in government transparency is beginning, and we are happy to be a part of it."

Some unfinished Bush Administration business remains to be attended to as regards “congestion pricing” for air services at New York area airports. And U.S. airlines have already asked the Obama administration to withdraw the controversial Bush plan for boosting competition and reducing congestion by auctioning off takeoff and landing rights at New York area airports.

Late last year, U.S. air carriers sued to block the slot auctions on grounds the FAA lacked the authority to carry them out. A U.S. appeals court stayed the auction plan in early December. The order prohibits the DOT from auctioning slots at Kennedy International, LaGuardia and Newark International unless and until the court formally considers and rules on the merits of the case.

"As you noted at your confirmation hearing, auctioning slots does not make sense as a tool to address congestion," James May, president and chief executive of the Air Transport Association, said in a letter to LaHood dated January 22.

“The auction rules, which confiscate landing and takeoff slots from airlines at New York’s primary airports and create a scheme for the FAA to auction them to other airlines, are opposed by the airline industry, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the airports, and by the New York congressional delegation.

“The rules were conceived by political appointees of the prior administration and advance the misplaced ideology that market measures can address delays. As the prior administration admitted, however, slot auctions will not reduce delays. Moreover, in our view, the FAA lacked the authority to issue these rules. On December 8, 2008, the D.C. Circuit indicated preliminary agreement and stayed the rules pending judicial review.

“They (the rules) should now be withdrawn to avoid further litigation expense for all parties and to permit the FAA to refocus its efforts on measures that will, in fact, reduce delays. The court has not yet issued a briefing schedule so there is a window of time for this administration to act,” May advised the new DOT chief by letter.

“Given the circumstances noted above, I urge you to immediately issue a notice withdrawing the rules pursuant to your authority and the department’s procedural rules,” he added.

The Bush administration’s free-market scheme sought to sell valuable takeoff/landing rights at LaGuardia and JFK International in New York and Newark Liberty in New Jersey as a way to reduce air traffic delays that ripple across the nation, costing airlines millions of dollars annually. Air carriers operating at the airports would be forced to give up ten percent of their slots over the next five years. The slots would then be auctioned off to other airlines operating larger commercial transports.

A legal opinion issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) last year said the FAA has no legal authority to auction coveted takeoff and landing rights at the airports to ease congestion and boost competition. “The FAA lacks a legal basis to go forward with the Newark auction or any other auction, and if the FAA were to go forward with auctioning slots without obtaining the necessary authority and retained and used the proceeds, the GAO would raise exceptions,” the GAO stated.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey applauded “the decision halting the Bush Administration's 11th-hour plan to auction existing landing and take-off slots at the New York metropolitan airports to the highest bidder, which would invariably drive up ticket prices for passengers for the same service without alleviating delays. We are confident that upon full review, the court will agree that the Administration does not have the authority to conduct an auction, and we look forward to working with the next Administration to develop real, long-term solutions to improve air travel."

Prior to Inauguration Day, DOT said ‘the court decision is bad news for travelers seeking a better flying experience in and out of the New York region. We are committed to our goal of protecting travelers, giving passengers more options and improving the air travel experience, and will continue to assess our options to provide relief for flyers."

A recent check with DOT produced no evidence that LaHood is ready to close the book on the matter or push ahead with what detractors have labeled an “ill-conceived ideological experiment.” A DOT spokesman said the litigation will have to play out before a policy decision on congestion pricing emerges from DOT headquarters.

Fans of airport slot auctions point out that the concept is not new. In London, for example, motorists pay a fee to drive into certain parts of the city during peak traffic hours, and the idea has been considered for implementation in New York City as well.

Now Dr. Itai Ater, an economist from Tel Aviv University's Faculty of Management, is suggesting that introducing congestion pricing at airports could save travelers time and airlines money.

"What I propose is a policy to reduce the amount of delays in the airline industry," says Dr. Ater. Airlines that want to use an airport's runways during the busiest times of the day, he says, should pay an additional fee. This price for premium access to the runway could reduce airport congestion — and the inevitable delays, as well as the risks, associated with crowded skies.

"Airport congestion is a big problem in the U.S. and around the world," says Dr. Ater, who evaluated flight records from America's busiest airports for his doctoral thesis at Stanford University. "The estimated annual costs of delays are $10 billion. When there are delays on takeoff or landing, a cascading effect is created, with lots of associated problems, risks and financial costs," he says.

One direct effect is that airlines spend more money on fuel, and there are indirect costs as well, mainly passengers' time. To counter delays, many airlines ‘pad’ their flight schedules, adding a considerable amount of time, says Dr. Ater. This padding increases the costs of airline staffing and the busy business flyer’s travel time— something often more valuable than money.

Some air carriers will prefer not to pay to use the ‘EZ-Pass Lane’ and operate during non-congested periods, Dr. Ater says. Consequently, overall congestion would drop. Currently, airlines at most airports pay for runway use depending on the weight of the aircraft, except for a few U.S, airports such as Chicago’s O’Hare International, where airports use predetermined slots to determine charges and time of operation.

Dr. Ater warns that not all airports can benefit from his plan. "At airports where there is a monopoly or almost a monopoly by a single airline, charging a tariff during peak hours has less meaning," he says. "In such airports, like those in Atlanta, Charlotte, or Detroit, we already find fewer delays. So why intervene? Individual airlines that dominate an airport do a better job of organizing flights more intelligently and efficiently to reduce the level of delays."

Previous research on the subject found it hard to provide consistent empirical evidence for congestion pricing. By splitting airport "types" into two categories — those with a monopoly and those that host multiple competing airlines — Dr. Ater began to see clear patterns emerge. Congestion pricing is the right approach for airports such as Boston Logan and Los Angeles International, he says.

No system is perfect, however. Dr. Ater suggests that the new cost might be in convenience. For that cheaper non-peak travel time flight, you will have to alter your plans to get to the airport a little — or a lot — earlier or later in the day.